924
Apple CEO Tim Cook Donating $1 Million to Trump's Inaugural Fund
(www.macrumors.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
924 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
60301 readers
3301 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
All these Billionaires PAYING Trump MILLIONS of Dollars is PROOF he CANT be Bought!
None of these companies would touch Trump with a 10 foot pole in the situation wasn't so dire. But he is the next president, and he is known to respond to stuff like this. Bend knee, kiss his ass and carry a huge wad of cash. This is just the cost of doing business, and even if a vocal minority cries out most people still buy iPhones, Teslas and shop at Amazon and Wal-Mart.
It's almost like capitalism is a terrible idea.
I struggle to call this capitalism. It's so twisted and corrupt it doesn't resemble what it started out as.
!LateStageCapitalism@lemmy.world
lol I interpret this as sarcasm, as with many of your other comments around Lemmy. If they are so, I think they're funny and so far I agree with what you actually value, democracy. However, it took me some time to understand your sarcasm. This might be just me, but I wonder if your comments could be subjected to Poe's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law). Is it impossible that they could be interpreted as candid?
I got the joke right away, I don't think there's any problem with it.
The thing is, no matter how obvious a contradiction is, far-right folks won't understand any of it, because they're so dumb. You cannot give them even the most basic, easily digestible facts and explanations, because even that requires a brain, which they don't have.
So I think, these kind of jokes are perfectly fine for our entertainment, and no amount of facts and information will ever convince the dumbest of the people.
Fair points:
I see you appreciate facts and information, the scientific process and the institutions that enable it. We have that in common. That's why, ironically, I'll start with anecdotal facts and then move on to more robust and generalizable findings. Do you know about my friend who went from defending "one dollar, one vote" (a couple of years ago) to explaining how the lack of third spaces is associated with inequality (a couple of weeks ago)? I don't expect you to at all, so do you know Contrapoints' impact on radicalized people who reach out to her (https://www.vice.com/en/article/contrapoints-interview-2019-natalie-wynn/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nrz4-FZx6k)?
These may sound like cherry-picked examples, but there's actually evidence of massive shifts in people's political views: the World Value Survey. Do you know how world values have changed ever since the WVS started?(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIXdRVe92gg)
In the face of the WVS shifts, it may seem like value changes only occur when material conditions allow for it, but there's evidence within the WVS literature that material conditions are not as important today (in particular, the variance that explains the change in values used to be mostly explained by material conditions, but now it is mostly explained by connectivity). However, we can also look at another set of scientific literature that shows that the way that things are presented can lead to changes in political attitudes. Do you know about the moral reframing literature? I'm sorry for the paywall https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12501 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337861541_Moral_reframing_A_technique_for_effective_and_persuasive_communication_across_political_divides
Thank you for showing me this valuable piece of information. No, I haven't seen these before.
Until now, I'm 100% confident that it's impossible to convince someone on the far-right of anything that's against their views, because I'm from a country that is 15 years ahead of the US on this tragic path into the dark future far away from common sense, thus I have a somewhat clear prediction for the general mental state of the people in the coming decades, which likely cannot be reversed in a century.
Yet, I'm thinking quite often, what I could do as an individual to at least somewhat better the situation in this miserable world. And so far all my ideas are based on withdrawal of content (much like how you take drugs away from a junkie) instead of adding arguments, which is obviously hard to pull off on a large scale.
Not that I could do anything though. Today you need to be rich to achieve something.
Nonetheless, maybe this is the missing piece to the puzzle. I'm considering to pay those extra bucks for that publication, also Welzel's book; they look promising. So thanks again for sharing.